Abstract

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id1425200. ; Size: 1363K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

1990 Arizona Repatriation Legislation

Arizona recently enacted two important pieces of legislation establishing broad repatriation rights for sensitive American Indian material. Section 844 of Arizona Revised Statutes, requires the state to repatriate human remains, funerary objects, sacred ceremonial materials, and items of tribal patrimony if these materials are either excavated on state land or in the control of state agencies. Section 865 of Arizona Revised Statutes, provides a right of repatriation if human remains or funerary objects are discovered on privately owned land. Both statutes confer repatriation rights on the governments of Indian tribes that have cultural or religious affinity to the materials whose repatriation is sought. The term affinity is generously defined in both laws. This article discusses the Arizona repatriation legislation in detail.

Three main themes underlie both new pieces of Arizona legislation. The first is a recognition of the enormous value of cooperative discussion among all interested parties when a controversy arises over the treatment or disposition of sensitive Indian materials. The second pervasive underlying theme is that when cooperative discussions do not resolve repatriation issues, concern for human rights should receive primary weight in decisions about the disposition and treatment of culturally sensitive materials. Finally, the legislation rests on the related assumptions that American Indian tribal governments are ordinarily the proper representatives of Indian interests in repatriation controversies, and that such governments, once empowered to protect their tribal beliefs and heritage, will sensitively and responsibly limit their repatriation claims to materials that are truly central to those beliefs and heritage.